rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/30/85)
> That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > this is what you'll have to do."... Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever scientific principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is Newman's duty to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." At the least, get the ball in Newman's court to start with; it's HIS machine after all. >...The scientific establishment makes > an ass of itself when it gets angry about people like Velikovsky > and Newman... I objected before when someone tried to make some comparison between Newman and Edison. I object now to grouping Newman and Velikovsky together. For all we can tell so far, Newman may be nothing more than misguided. Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a nasty one at that. The scientific establishment has ample reason to be angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/01/85)
See references: > > That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > > this is what you'll have to do."... > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > strikes back: > Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to > guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever > scientific principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is > Newman's duty to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." > Well, it like this, there are hardly any Newman's left, so I would not be too concerned about the time it takes to teach one. And, the scientist is NOT the judge **unless they are also a bureau- crat :-} **, rather Reality is the test. It is the scientist's duty to test the Reality of the claims, and if they have a PhD they must in addition teach, review papers, explore and seek out truth even where no man has gone, (sorry Scotty).. to explain, and reformulate or update knowledge for ALL mankind, whenever reasonably possible, night and day at home or away, whether divorced or gainfully employed. Otherwise they should be stripped of their misgiven degree and cast out of the Holy Mother Science. And that's final. Let's humble up. :-) +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..umcp-cs! ..seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (11/08/85)
> > That Newman has no formal training means that he is unlikely to know > > what to say to get the attention of trained scientists. It is the > > duty of the scientists to say "If you want to convince me of that, > > this is what you'll have to do."... > > Not fair. Scientists, in general, don't have the time or the reason to > guide everyone with no formal training through learning whatever scientific > principles are needed. It would be fairer to say that it is Newman's duty > to say, "What do I need to do to convince you of <X>?..." At the least, > get the ball in Newman's court to start with; it's HIS machine after all. > > >...The scientific establishment makes > > an ass of itself when it gets angry about people like Velikovsky > > and Newman... > > I objected before when someone tried to make some comparison between Newman > and Edison. I object now to grouping Newman and Velikovsky together. For > all we can tell so far, Newman may be nothing more than misguided. > Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a > nasty one at that. The scientific establishment has ample reason to be > angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. > -- > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Briefly, in l950, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed a reconstruction of history and a new look at how the Solar System attained its present status. For those of us being taught in school in those days that thee system had coalesced in blobs to form the planets, in a very uniform process over billions of years, it was a ridiculous book: why, in 1950, that crackpot predicted that the face of Mars would be pockmarked by craters and would have long cracks caused by other celestial phenomena; he said that Jupiter would have radio noise as a result of interaction with charged particles spewing from the sun; he indicated that Venus would be in a near-molten state because it was still cooling down from its history as a recently-formed planet; he said that the Earth's magentic field effects extended beyond the Moon, and even that the Moon would show remnant magnetism, and evidence of recent cometary impacts; he said that the Sun would have a measurable electrical charge; he said that some petroleum deposits would carbon-date (or otherwise be dated) in thousands of years, rather than millions; he concluded a wild and crazy origin for Linear B script (a great mystery in those days). Why, that crazy guy evn said that all cultures on earth have legends of a universal flood, of comets that gave rise to the dragons of Mayan, Chinese, and European mythology; he claimed that carbon-dating the pyramids and pharoahs would upset then-existing chronology of Egyptian history vis-a-vis the history of the rest of the Mediterranean; he said that there were celestial and geological reasons for the events enumerated in the Exodus book of the Bible, and reported also, event-for-event by the Egyptians. In summary, that crackpot, that charlatan, why he upset the uniformitarian paradigm of 1950. Of course, we all know by knowledge from space probes, from Lunar landings, and from iridium deposits around the world, that the earth has had a nice, uniform history, that space contains no electrical phenomena, that Jupiter does not radiate anything at all, that the rocks on the Moon never showed any externally-applied magnetism, that Venus has cool oceans, that Venus is not phase-locked with the earth, and that all planets rotate, North pole at top, that layer after layer of sediment has collected, undisturbed, for billions and billions of years, and that no species has ever become extinct abrutply, that the earth's magnetic field does not quickly shift, and that the continents don't drift. Good thing that old boy died a few years back; with his kind of crackpot theories, why, next thing you know, he'd be claiming that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, or that Uranus rotates 90 degrees to the eclitptic or some such nonsense. Sure glad to hear from all yall skientisks who know that dude were craazy. --arlan andrews analog irregular anarchist reader of crazy s--- (incl. Usenet)
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/11/85)
For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, he missed several others. This perhaps entitles him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. Yes, there were (and are) closed-minded scientists who do not understand the difference between actual factual knowledge and currently-accepted theorizing. This confusion gets propagated to the lay audience. That is indeed a problem. But cranks and frauds are by no means immune to this problem..
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (11/12/85)
> Briefly, in l950, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed a reconstruction of history > and a new look at how the Solar System attained its present status. For what it's worth, Dr Velikovsky's efforts were hardly brief or confined to the 1950s. Until his death a few years ago he maintained that he "would not change a word" of his books (mainly Worlds In Collision and Ages in Chaos) that propounded his novel and wholly loony notions of prehistory. > . . . why, in 1950, that crackpot > predicted that the face of Mars would be pockmarked by craters and would > have long cracks caused by other celestial phenomena; he said that Jupiter > would have radio noise as a result of interaction with charged particles > spewing from the sun; he indicated that Venus would be in a near-molten state > because it was still cooling down from its history as a recently-formed > planet; he said that the Earth's magentic field effects extended beyond the > Moon, and even that the Moon would show remnant magnetism, and evidence of > recent cometary impacts; he said that the Sun would have a measurable > electrical charge; he said that some petroleum deposits would carbon-date > (or otherwise be dated) in thousands of years, rather than millions; he > concluded a wild and crazy origin for Linear B script (a great mystery in > those days). Dr Velikovsky's defenders understandably emphasize the successes in his theory - the claims he made that later turned out to be true. There's nothing wrong with this except that not one of them (to my knowledge) was original with Velikovsky. The notion that Cretan Linear B was an early Greek was proposed back in the mid-40s or so, for instance (contrary to the assertions of some Velikovsky enthusiasts). In addition, many of Dr V's claims are known to be totally wrong (including a few obvious ones in the list quoted above), and in several cases were clearly based on simple ignorance rather than original thinking. To use an oft-cited example, Velikovsky seems not to have had a clear understanding of the difference between hydrocarbons and carborhydrates. He wrote a little-known paper denying the existence of gravity and offering silly arguments for the idea. (I might add that someone can reach the correct conclusion and still be a nut. I remember a sitcom in which somebody kept winning football pools by betting based on the relative ferocity of the teams' mascots.) > Why, that crazy guy evn said that all cultures on earth have legends of > a universal flood, and they don't, of course. > In summary, that crackpot, that charlatan, why he upset the uniformitarian > paradigm of 1950. > > --arlan andrews This is not the place to go into a recent history of scientific thought, nor I am likely to suggest that scientists are perfect beings, but it is bogus to claim that Dr Velikovsky was rejected out of hand simply because he failed to conform to dogma. Why is Fred Hoyle, who has come up with some pretty wild ideas in his time, held in such high regard in scientific circles while Velikovsky is ignored? A big reason is that Velikovsky treated his critics with contempt even before they had had a chance to criticize him (read Worlds In Collision and see what I mean). He derided anyone foolish enough to take ice ages or evolution seriously. I remember that when I first started reading WIC I was amazed. I admit I had expected a crackpot, but I had not expected such an offensive, contemptuous, mean-spirited, dumb crackpot. Furthermore, not all of the alleged attempts at suppressing Velikovsky's ideas were really aimed at Dr V. Shapely's boycott against the original publisher of Worlds In Collision really was directed at the publisher (for presenting the book to a naive public as if it were a great scientific achievement) rather than against Velikovsky himself. Anyway, as Dick Dunn says: > Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a > nasty one at that. The scientific establishment has ample reason to be > angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. > -- > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/16/85)
> For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, > he missed several others. This perhaps entitles > him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. > Hey Doug, Aren't you being a little rough on the guy! I mean if you say things like this, and, it's not going to make A. Einstein look that great either. Let's just say the man had guts. I. Velisolly* *phun intended +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/16/85)
Determined to bury Velikovsky, Goody Gravel Grady shovels higher & deeper: > To use an oft-cited example, Velikovsky seems not to have had a clear > understanding of the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. Well that's understandable, I think in slavic languages the words mean the same thing. > He wrote a little-known paper denying the existence of I also believe that does not exist. > .. I am (not) likely to suggest that scientists are perfect beings, > but it is bogus to claim that Dr. Velikovsky was rejected out of hand > simply because he failed to conform to dogma. ^^^^^ Oh my! There we go, again, an expression from Holy Mother Science. > Why is Fred Hoyle, who has come up with some pretty wild ideas in > his time, held in such high regard in scientific circles while > Velikovsky is ignored? Well actually, high .. or low . . Hoyle that is, ----- he was associated with the "Steady State Universe" theory and that one didn't need the presence of God (no creation necessary) so it gave a rather totalitarian role to science in explaining all things. It was good for the ego mania of science, which breaks out NOW and then. Hoyle should have stuck to card game rules! :-) As far as "Veli-baby", well he tried to explain religious things by stretching constructs of science and that's like being a number one traitor in that he was helping the "other guys". Anybody that supports "biblical" events gets on the "ho-ho" hit list fast. Actually, he was pretty clever and fanciful. > I was amazed. I admit I had expected a crackpot, but I had not > expected such an offensive, contemptuous, mean-spirited, dumb > crackpot. You left out "low down, sneaking, thieving, cattle rustling, blind dirty dog" > Velikovsky's ideas were really aimed at Dr V. Shapely's boycott By the way, how did Shapely's daughter turn out? > Anyway, as Dick Dunn says: > > Velikovsky has shown himself to be a charlatan of the first order--and a > > nasty one at that. ^^^^^ Hey I'll bet his mommy thought he was "nasty" too. > > angry with him; they've got to deal with the crap he's slinging. ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ How do you think he got his BS degree? +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (11/18/85)
> > For every prediction that Velikovsky came close on, > > he missed several others. This perhaps entitles > > him to the same scientific respect as Jean Dixon. > > Hey Doug, > Aren't you being a little rough on the guy! I mean if you > say things like this, and, it's not going to make A. Einstein look > that great either. Let's just say the man had guts. Ah, but Einstein didn't miss much. You might count his position on indeterminism in quantum theory against him, although his best objections have never been answered to my satisfaction, and perhaps even his work toward the unified field theory (although that is my specialty and I think he knew what he was doing there). In his favor are dozens of major achievements, many of them more radical than what Velikovsky proposed (although, and here is a significant difference, they clarified troublesome areas of physics rather than contradicting known areas of physics). The significant difference between the two men as physical theorists is that Einstein made definite, mathematical, theories that extended our physical understanding, whereas Velikovsky made relatively imprecise, intuitive arguments aimed specifically at supporting a specific postulated historical interpretation of certain myths and without other physical basis. I have to admit that some of the theories I have seen from reputable physicists appear to be not much better founded than Velikovsky's speculations, but at least they usually implicitly agree to have their ideas tried by the operation of normal science research, including peer evaluation and experimental testing. This makes their work "more scientific", even if not more correct. The process of peer review and refereed publication is certainly not ideal, but it is better than the obvious alternatives. If someone has a really good idea how potentially valuable ideas can filter through the system using some other approach, it would be quite a service to explain how. (Il Nuovo Cimento is one journal that publishes more speculative papers, but even it uses peer review to keep out obvious trash. I have no special love for the process, which rejected my anti-tachyon paper due to being reviewed by people whose funding was for pro-tachyon research, but I see the necessity for something of the sort.)
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (11/19/85)
I think you're pulling my leg, Paul, but what the heck, I'll bite back. (The double >> stuff is me quoted by Paul Koloc, the one > stuff is Mr. Fusion himself.) > > Determined to bury Velikovsky, Goody Gravel Grady shovels higher & deeper: > > To use an oft-cited example, Velikovsky seems not to have had a clear > > understanding of the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. > > Well that's understandable, I think in slavic languages the words > mean the same thing. Coming soon: the Velikovsky Diet! Lose weight and conserve petroleum at the same time! > > simply because he failed to conform to dogma. > ^^^^^ > Oh my! There we go, again, an expression from Holy Mother Science. I was, of course, asserting that failure to conform to this mythical "dogma" was not an issue. > [Fred Hoyle] was > associated with the "Steady State Universe" theory and that one > didn't need the presence of God (no creation necessary) so it gave > a rather totalitarian role to science in explaining all things. Actually, Hoyle's ideas cover a lot more than that, including such notions as directed panspermia. > As far as "Veli-baby", well he tried to explain religious things > by stretching constructs of science and that's like being a > number one traitor in that he was helping the "other guys". > Anybody that supports "biblical" events gets on the "ho-ho" > hit list fast. Actually, he was pretty clever and fanciful. Many scientists are quite religious. In any event, few perceive science and religion as opposed or even covering the same subject areas. Some religious extremists are, of course, inclined to oppose science because it upsets their notions of astronomy or history (part of what we call dogma, you know). I certainly agree that Dr V was clever and fanciful. > > I was amazed. I admit I had expected a crackpot, but I had not > > expected such an offensive, contemptuous, mean-spirited, dumb > > crackpot. > > You left out "low down, sneaking, thieving, cattle rustling, blind > dirty dog" I wasn't just calling names, Paul. I was objecting to Velikovsky's rabid attacks on anyone whom he suspected might disagree with his Velikovskian dogma. Read _Worlds In Collision_ and see what I mean. > By the way, how did Shapely's daughter turn out? Ho ho ho > +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ > | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | > | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | > | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | > +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+